McCain showed great courage once. How does his courage compare to that of Senator Obama?
"When the USS Abraham Lincoln is in Jebel Ali, we're going to blow up a boat next to it."…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Why Obama Deserves the Respect of Conservatives - Comments Page 2
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Baronius
Cindy, I'm pretty sure that Dan understands what I was saying. I sure hope so.
I thought that this article was good, but incorrect. But as soon as the discussion started, it just became another occasion to talk about how people who oppose Obama are racists. It seems like 90% of the discussions recently have been about Republican racism - or like your recent comments, have implied that Republicans are racist. So it's fair to say that my comments to Dan were specifically making fun of you, and to a lesser extent Baritone.
Mark wrote that this election was bringing up some hard feelings. I think that you've been as guilty as anyone, simply tossing around accusations without caring if they're true. Such behaviour leave the country worse.
27 - Cindy D
I think it's just you Dan.
No one asked Baronius to demonstrate he wasn't a racist. No one called him one.
So, Baronius did you read the reply I wrote to you?
28 - Baritone
Dan,
While members of the military, police and fire personnel, and yes cab drivers (BTW - I drove a cab in NYC for over a year back in bad old 1969 and 1970,) do put their lives on the line on a daily basis, rarely do they get mailed an emailed threats. Nevertheless, I don't disparage their service or the constant danger many of them face.
I don't know if you were suggesting that the reason for Obama's candidacy is a "pursuit of power and glory." Isn't that to some extent pretty much true of any politician - including the Senator from Arizona?
The point of article as I understand it is simply that under the circumstances the Obama's receive a significantly higher number of serious threats than McCain or anyone else on the campaign trail - that it necessarily weighs heavily on them, yet, contrary to Arch and Baronius claims, they rarely make any reference to it.
B
29 - Cannonshop
#28 Baritone, if you're a candidate for national office, and you DON'T get Death-Threats, you fall deeply into that crevice known variously as "ineffectual", "Irrelevant", or "Not got a chance in hell of reaching office."
Thus, facing "Death threats" isn't "Heroic", it's part of the job. facing actual "Assassination Attempts" is a bit different from getting some hate-mail, even some hate-E-Mail. If someone were TRYING to kill Obama, it'd be all over the news, and you can BET it would be hyped by his campaign as proof of his opponent's fundamental vile evilness.
I'd further submit that, if one were to go through the E-mail/snail-mail of McCain's campaign, one would ALSO find death-threats. The difference is, McCain can't use Death-Threats to energize his supporters, but Obama CAN use them (indirectly) to generate excitement.
30 - Arch Conservative
Glenn wants to pretend that all of the nutjobs in this country are to the right of center and that Everyone on the right is a nutjob while there are no nutjobs on the left.
Glenn implying that in the last eight years of living in America he's never heard anything crazy coming from the left is akin to Obama's claim that although he attended Reverend Wright's church for twenty years he did not know what the man was all about.
That's the bread and butter play in the liberal handbook though isn't it Glenn....when faced with the truth...deny deny deny.............
31 - Cannonshop
Arch, he's got a right to feel that way (even if he's dead wrong), there ARE quite a few nutjobs on the right. Admittedly, they aren't as stylish as the ones on the Left, and they don't get the same level of protection from criticism that the ones on the Left recieve, but there ARE nutjobs on the right.
incidentally, just to reiterate my earlier comment:
If you're a politician, and you AREN'T receiving death-threats, it's likely you aren't doing your job. Being in office, making decisions, these things piss people off-if you never rock the boat or piss anyone off, it's rather likely you're about as useful as a well-soaked noodle covered in mold... or you've already passed on and the person put in your seat to finish your term for you is pissing people off.
32 - Cindy D
Baronius,
Your claim is unjustified. See Post 111 and 112. You said that you were disheartened by what I wrote. Was that just some disingenuous posturing? It made me feel bad. I explained myself. You ignored my reply. So, did you read those two posts?
I will give you that I posted one irresponsible headline for an article where one individual claimed Palin made a racist remark. Which Clav repudiated. And I apologized.
That is the extent of my exaggeration regarding Palin and race. The rest of the information I posted, the post where you put words in my mouth. That's your distortion. I posted facts. Period. Sorry if you don't care for facts.
In fact, my view in the post about Alaska Natives and Alaskan blacks (rather than race) has to do more with Palin being an insensitive, undereducated, and unthinking perpetrator of the "crimes" of the dominant culture.* I have no idea if Palin is an active racist. And I really don't care. She demonstrates, by her actions, that she is simply too ignorant and uncaring to even think in terms of anyone but herself (and people like herself). That's not what I want in anyone who has power.
*A Dictionary of Sociology
dominant culture: Whereas traditional societies can be characterized by a high consistency of cultural traits and customs, modern societies are often a conglomeration of different, often competing, cultures and subcultures. In such a situation of diversity, a dominant culture is one that is able, through economic or political power, to impose its values, language, and ways of behaving on a subordinate culture or cultures. This may be achieved through legal or political suppression of other sets of values and patterns of behaviour, or by monopolizing the media of communication.
33 - Baritone
Cannon,
To the contrary, the Obama campaign has made no public reference regarding threats of violence, and wouldn't, despite your cynical assumption that they would simply for the publicity. Like them or not, the Obama organization is NOT stupid. To bring attention to any threats would be an invitation.
No one here suggested that McCain and other candidates don't receive hate mail and death threats. I'm sure they do. For Obama, it is the depth and breadth of them that raises more concern. You guys just remain in denial, staunch in your belief that race plays no role in this campaign. You are simply out of touch with reality.
B
34 - Baronius
Cannon - To paraphrase Baritone, we don't know how many threats Obama receives and we don't know how many threats McCain receives, and Obama receives more.
35 - Baronius
Cindy, I'll grant you this much: you don't throw around the word "racism". I've probably accused you of that, and I'm wrong. You do throw around the accusation though.
You critique Palin in terms of her motivations. There's a violation of Occam's Razor here. You can acknowledge the fact that Palin's administration took a position on commercial fishing; that's fine. You don't need to make the assumption that it was insensitive, much less a crime.
In that sense, you don't call her a racist. You do call her an uncaring imposer of the dominant culture. How is that better?
I read your posts. I don't know how to reply to them without committing the error I accuse you of: mindreading your opponent. To me, those posts indicate that you don't care what you say, or how far you lower American discourse, as long as you score points against the other side. I hate to draw that conclusion, because at best it's dismissive and at worst it lowers me to the level I perceive your comments to be.
I accuse Biden of lying. I say that because he stood on stage and lied. For the life of me, I can't see how the facts support your accusations.
36 - Glenn Contrarian
Arch and C-shop -
Man, but the two of you do seem to love to make lots of assumptions, huh? As in I think "there are no nutjobs on the left".
Y'know, if I were as you seem to believe, then you would never have seen me give glowing praise to Reagan as I often do. I hold him to be one of the great presidents, for his victory in the Cold War and his ability to make the people proud once more of being American far outweigh all his other mistakes.
FYI, that's why I could never vote for Nader or Kucinich or Jackson. They ARE left-wing 'nutjobs' who are either unwilling or unable to see both sides of an issue, just as the right-wing nutjobs are equally unwilling or unable to do so.
FYI, for most issues I'm a centrist, a big believer in the 'bell curve of humanity', meaning that the great majority of humanity are NOT 'nutjobs', but there's probably five percent on each side who are.
By the same token, I do my damnedest to be fair in my judgments - and I think the two of you would be hard-pressed to find any insult or unkind assumptions of any person (other than a candidate, a celebrity, or historical figure) on any blog or forum where I participate. Can the two of you say the same for yourselves?
Did you two not learn from the McCain campaign that insults and disparaging comments do not always have the intended effect? If you believe that all men are created equal, then speak to others as equals. If you don't, then you certainly don't believe that particular tenet of the Declaration of Independence. But be careful - if you believe that all are truly equal, you might find yourself becoming liberal (sorry - couldn't resist).
Perhaps the two of you spent time in the military. If you did, then you probably remember the adage about the word 'assume'...it makes an 'ass' of 'u' and 'me'. As far as practicable, don't assume. Make your judgments on the available EVIDENCE. Keep your trains of logic aligned with the evidence at hand. You'll make assumptions...but at least keep those assumptions logical.
37 - moon
Glenn, Before you get too big for your jockstrap. there, remember that nutjobs (great English language clinical psychology term, that) are in the eye of the beholder.
I voted for Jackson--wrote him in in 1984.
He sure looked better than a senile old ham actor.
38 - Arch Conservative
Glenn I can only go on what you give me and the whole premise of your article is that I as a consrvative should have respect for Obama because he has received death threats.
First of all you cannot possibly know how seriously Obama takes those threats. If he has a cavalier attitude toward them because he thinks they could never happen then he's not really do anything great by running is he.
If on the other hand he believes his life is truly in danger but runs any way then you could make an argument that he's doing it for the country. But I'd disagree with that too. Obama is a typical mainstream politician which means that the thing he cares about above all else is his own political ambition and aspirations. I don't respect that. Obama is also very far to the left of what most Americans hold to be traditional American values and he wants to force his leftist beliefs upon us. It's just too sad that most are blinded by their anger for Bush to realize this.
McCain's equally as useless.
So no...... I don't think you'll catch me exhbiting even the slightest amount fo concern or respect for Obama today, tomorrow, or ever.
If some whackjob were to succeed in taking out Obama, McCain or pretty much any other mainstream politicin I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
I feel sorry for these people worshipping Obama and insiting that he's somehow going to save the world. Well first I feel sorry for them and then angry at them because they the power they seem to be exerting. I guess the adagae is true "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers."
39 - moon
Arch,
I really think it is time for you to be put out to pasture.
Nobody--even the sycophants floating around in internet--worships ANY politician.
40 - Ruvy
you would never have seen me give glowing praise to Reagan as I often do. I hold him to be one of the great presidents, for his victory in the Cold War and his ability to make the people proud once more of being American far outweigh all his other mistakes.
Glenn,
I hope for your sake you have an awful lot of money stashed in that little piggy bank of yourn. It was Ronald Reagan, the man who made a shambles of the name Ronald, among other things, who turned your nation from a creditor to debtor nation. Or, at least, it happened on his watch. And the Republicans who followed him have done nothing at all to try to rectify that sin.
The only person who followed any kind of fiscally reponsible policy at all in the last 28 years was a man who managed to get a big haired, big ambitioned girl to suck his dick and who lied about it until the semen stains on her skirt proved him guilty. A Democrat and red-neck with a blue-blood's education. Go swallow that reality, Glenn.
41 - moon
Good post, Ruvy--I couldn't have said it better.
42 - Ruvy
Thanks, Marthe. I'll try not to get a swollen head. I won't be able to fit into the bedroom when I get off the computer....
It's getting late (twenty past eleven) and I have a business meeting in Jerusalem tomorrow. Gotta get out of the village on the early bus.
43 - Glenn Contrarian
Arch -
I think you WOULD lose a great deal of sleep if something happened to Obama - that is, unless you live in, say, rural Idaho or Utah or some similarly lily-white region.
And just as you say that I cannot possibly know how seriously he takes those threats, YOU cannot possibly know that he DOESN'T take those threats seriously, that he is just another politician out to get his while the getting's good. But I can say this - those who are all about 'my-me-mine' do tend to be Republican, and those who are about 'we-us-ours' tend to be Democratic. We Dems tend to be more empathic, IMO...which is why I wrote the article to begin with...and why the conservatives thought it was so much BS.
Ruvy -
Tell me - how does our disastrous current financial situation compare with the prospect of having a full-scale thermonuclear exchange (and the possible end of civilization)? We lived under that shadow for over a generation...and Reagan brought it to an end. I really don't care if he'd personally kept a harem of little girls and boys - I'd STILL say he was a great president, because while we worry today about a rogue terrorist with a nuke, we do NOT worry overmuch about a full-scale thermonuclear exchange.
I am a liberal - but Reagan was a genuine hero to this world no matter what you may think. Time to get your priorities straight.
44 - Cannonshop
#36 Glenn, put the sensitivity away before you hurt yourself, I was gently (if only subtly) reminding Arch that there's plenty of crazy to go around on both sides of the aisle in my comment #31 comment.
I my general comments before #31 and at the end of #31, I was pointing out something that addresses your core thesis.
It's NOT heroic for a politician to continue on when recieving death-threats, because Death-Threats are part and parcel of being a Politician, just as they are for "real" Journalists. If someone running for office is genuinely scared by a threat, then that person shouldn't be running for office-especially an office where even MORE potent threats are part-and-parcel of everyday dealings.
IOW, that sweaty, shaggy, smelly guy on the Internutz who's making threats he can't carry out is no big deal, and even less of a big deal compared to the foreign leader who's got screws loose and (potential)access to nukes, or trained foreign service operatives able to actually make good on his threats if the Secret Service isn't on the job today.
It is NOT heroic to persevere in the face of impotent threats, it IS heroic to persevere in the face of actual (physical) attacks.
Your thesis is that we should admire Barack Obama for persevering in the face of impotence and incompetence directed against him.
My counter is: This is not admirable, it's not non-admirable, but it's not worthy of much respect. He's not Bob Marley, nobody's actually gotten close enough to make a credible attempt on his life.
Now, there's also different kinds of respect-there's the respect someone holds for someone who does something really difficult or dangerous-firemen, for instance, or good cops deserve everyone's respect for what they DO. These people face serious danger on a daily basis.
Your thesis claims that Conservatives, in particular, should give Barack Obama this kind of respect.
I submit that he's more deserving of another kind of respect. The kind you give to broken glass on a bathroom floor, venomous snakes, unexploded ordinance, and large machine tools without guards.
He's a Chicago Politician, Glenn. A successful one, that rose quickly in the Daly machine. By definition, this makes him a dangerous man with few (if any)ethical or moral limits on what he's capable of doing to advance himself.
45 - Baronius
Glenn - Most Republicans would be broken-hearted if something happened to Obama. Not out of a fear of a black uprising, either.
46 - Mark Saleski
...that rose quickly in the Daly machine. By definition, this makes him a dangerous man with few (if any)ethical or moral limits on what he's capable of doing to advance himself.
it's amazing, the magnetic pull of the political cliche.
47 - Glenn Contrarian
C-shop -
Y'know, if the threats were indeed impotent, you'd be right. But when shouts of 'terrorist' and 'traitor' by the Republican faithful are condoned (if only by the silence of McCain (other than his ONE long-delayed rebuke) and Palin and by the outright encouragement of the likes of Michael Savage and his ilk), it doesn't take an overactive imagination to see where this can lead.
C-shop, we're HUMAN. We're just as human as the Germans in the 30's, or the Rwandans in the 90's, or in any of the dozens of other countries where atrocities have occurred in modern times. Here in America we ARE human, and as with all humans we are subject to mob mentality and vicious rumor. By saying the threats are impotent, you are implying that you believe that "it can't happen here". Not so long ago, we didn't believe America could have thousands of refugees inside our own border, either - much less that we would publicly support kidnapping and torture and imprisonment for years without trial or even access to legal counsel.
But I don't think you'll agree, because I suspect your cynicism makes it very difficult for you to conceive that a politician might, just might be a good family man who just happens to be highly intelligent, educated, a gifted orator, who actually puts the good of others ahead of his own. It seems to me that you think that such is impossible. I could be wrong, but that's my impression of you.
Obama does seem to be a good family man. He is highly intelligent, well educated, and a gifted orator. But does he put the good of others ahead of his own?
Remember, when he was graduating magna cum laude in law at Harvard, he HAD to be getting offers of six figures - possibly on the high end. Did he take those offers? No. He went back to the south side of Chicago and worked for social change on the local level. Obama turned away from money, power, and prestige and followed a different path, one where he could make a difference in the lives of the inner-city disadvantaged.
You yourself might say he did it for power. But that's what a Republican would think...all the while never realizing that to most liberals, personal authority is really not that important. Leading the Democrats has been compared to 'herding cats' - done only with great difficulty and limited success. Cats don't care overmuch about authority, whether it be their own or someone else's...and the same is true of most liberals. That's why most Republicans love (and most Democrats don't love) being in the military - it's all about authority.
That's one of the reasons conservatives are so suspicious about liberals - because conservatives can't conceive that personal power and authority isn't high on our list of priorities. Liberals, OTOH, often think of conservatives as downright evil because "we don't run their lives, so how DARE they assume they can run our lives?"
Thus, we really don't understand each other's mindset.
As I said, I could be completely wrong about your mindset and if I am, please accept my sincere apology. But that's what I think is the real reason why you are so suspicious of Obama - you honestly can't conceive that he is anything other than what you believe him to be.
You seem to believe I'm not cynical enough. Perhaps, but by being too cynical is every bit as dangerous as not being cynical enough.
48 - Baritone
Glenn,
As noted, I agree with your article. However, I do NOT agree about Reagan. Could you recount for me exactly WHAT Reagan did - be specific - to "bring down the Soviet Union?" Beyond his having been the guy in the WH at the time that the USSR crumbled, I can't recall one action taken by Reagan or anyone else outside of the Soviet Union itself that made ANY significant contribution to its downfall. The Soviet Union came down of its own weight, its own corruption, its own failures. Reagan had nothing to do with it, even though he did stand up and accept credit for it after the fact.
I must be one of only 2 or 3 people in the world who doesn't believe that Reagan was the bestest president ever. Hell, I think Carter was better in many respects. At least he was honest.
B
49 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, I think you seriously misread the motivations of the left and the right in America. The right sees wealth as a route to power. The left sees power as a route to wealth.
Obama's choice to go into the ground level of grassroots politics makes perfect sense because that's the first step on the ladder of political power, which will ultimately lead to wealth and more power down the road.
One of the problems the right has is that because they take the opposite course and pursue wealth as a route to power, they often get pulled away from politics, ironically leaving us with politicians who aren't terribly competent, because all the best people went corporate and became rich instead.
Dave
50 - Ruvy
Glenn,
Read what Baritone wrote above. The Soviet system was corrupt and sick, and due for a fall. More to the point, a far healthier version of that systen now stalks the planet like a mean bear, with all the hunger and cunning of a Spetsnaz wolf, ready to bring the world all the evils of the old Soviet empire, but young, strong, and not weighted down with a Marxist ideology or a need to spread world revolution. The Russians still goose-step to the tune "power to the boss".
If you insist on the fairy tale of the States outspending the Soviets on defense, you may wish to consider that the price is being paid now with an American economic collapse as all the bubbles that began blowing up in the Reagan years popping, one by one.
51 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave - Hm. I'm not sure whether to agree or disagree with you...I'll have to mull that one over for a while. Sounds reasonable on its surface...but I've got to scratch the surface first and see what's beneath. I'll get back to you on that one.
Ruvy - There have been NO times that we have been hours away from a nuclear war since the fall of the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, we went to that brink several times.
Don't get me wrong - if it weren't for his victory in the Cold War, Reagan would have been deemed a terrible president due to his introduction of supply-side economics, Lebanon, and Iran-Contra. BUT the Cold War dwarfs all that. I was in the military for the last decade of the Cold War. I have a clue how close it was. You apparently don't.
52 - Cannonshop
Ah, damn, Glenn...where to start?
(sigh)
You say I'm too cynical-well, maybe. Maybe you're not cynical enough.
#46 Sometimes things are Cliche'd because they're self-evident truths, Mark.
53 - Glenn Contrarian
C-shop - If you'll look, I said you probably thought I wasn't cynical enough...and I pointed out that being too cynical is every bit as bad as not being cynical enough.
Dave - I did give it a good bit of thought...and when it comes to the liberal side, you're partially right. We DO see power as a tool to achieve, to do something concrete. I think I can safely say that we do NOT see power as a means to wealth, because wealth has never been our priority.
Think about it - who is it that's always saying to the government, "keep your hands off my money!"? Is it the liberals? I think you know better. We don't enjoy taxes, but neither do we mind them overmuch. Where do you find liberals? Generally, we're the ones in the lower-paying career jobs such as teaching or nursing or some such. You generally do NOT find us in the highest-paying jobs. Why? Money simply doesn't mean as much to us as it does to you.
When a Republican is preaching about tax cuts, does this strike a chord with liberals? Generally, no. We're more concerned with health care and education. The tax cuts are nice...but to us they're simply not that important. It's only money. We need it, we have to work and earn it in order to do the things we want or need to do...but seeking wealth for the sake of wealth is a rare trait indeed in the liberal community.
And that brings us back to Obama. Remember, he turned his back on six-figure salaries to go work for social justice and equal opportunity on the streets of the south side of Chicago. The money simply wasn't that big a deal to him. We liberals understand that.
Hopefully you can better understand us, too.
54 - Cannonshop
And that brings us back to Obama. Remember, he turned his back on six-figure salaries to go work for social justice and equal opportunity on the streets of the south side of Chicago. The money simply wasn't that big a deal to him. We liberals understand that.
Ummm... I don't believe that. I believe he went to work where he did, mostly in order to build a political power-base to run for higher office. He was a "community organizer" BEFORE he went to Law School and became a lawyer, after which, he went to work for the same firm that represented Bernadine Dohrn, not exactly chicken-feed, where he met his wife. During his period as a member of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, he funnelled money to a number of groups that later were instrumental in getting him elected to the Illionois Legislature-notably, his time with the CAC saw ZERO improvement in schools involved in the grant, in spite of more than fifty million dollars spent.
Notably, as an Illinois Legislator, he managed to get an earmark to the same hospital his wife worked at-and she got a raise not long after. a MASSIVE raise.
His pattern in office is typical of political corruption and the use of political power for personal financial gain, Glenn.
A "tool" indeed. His history is a fairly pure example of exactly WHY Conservatives don't want to give money to Government. Ineffectual "help" at inflated costs which are siphoned away to benefit those in office, and those close to those in office. If you liked Cheney/Halliburton, you'll LOVE Obama greasing the skids for his friends from the white-house.
55 - Arch Conservative
I think you WOULD lose a great deal of sleep if something happened to Obama - that is, unless you live in, say, rural Idaho or Utah or some similarly lily-white region.
Ah yes anyone who doesn't care for Obama must be a racist right Glenn? You forgot to address the fact that I said I would also be indifferent if McCain or any other politician were to be have "something happen" to them.
"But I can say this - those who are all about 'my-me-mine' do tend to be Republican, and those who are about 'we-us-ours' tend to be Democratic. We Dems tend to be more empathic, IMO...which is why I wrote the article to begin with...and why the conservatives thought it was so much BS."
That's a steaming pile of dung. Every major study that tracks charitable contributions shows that red states, where more conservatives/republicans tend to live, give much more to charity than blue states.
While there are people of generosity and good will on both sides of the political divide it would seem that the diference is that those on the left would have government mandate chairty while those on the right think that private citizens are actually capable of determing who deseres charity and who does not.
Believe it or not Glenn.........not everyone is a victim of society. Sometimes peole are victims of their one stupifity, apathy or lazieness.
56 - bliffle
Reagan didn't end the cold war. Russia imploded from it's own internal faults. Reagan persevered, as every president since 1940 did, and that's all. He did nothing special, and hostile words in his speeches did nothing.
57 - bliffle
Cannon #54 makes some serious statements. Do you have any citations, or are those facts echoed from NRO opinion columns?
58 - Ruvy
Glenn,
Ruvy - There have been NO times that we have been hours away from a nuclear war since the fall of the Soviet Union. During the Cold War, we went to that brink several times.
But it wasn't REAGAN who brought about the fall of the USSR. The fools got involved in Afghanistan, and just like the Brits (and the Americans now), they got stuck in a quagmire fighting (ooh, this is rich) Children of Israel! Yup! Those crazy Taliban are descended from the Ten Tribes the Assyrians exiled from this country 2,800 years ago!
That's to start with. Second of all, tjhe fall of the USSR weakened the country for a number of years. That period of weakness is OVER.
I was in the military for the last decade of the Cold War. I have a clue how close it was. You apparently don't.
To my direct knowledge, the US and the USSR came a hair's breadth away from nuclear conflict over Berlin in the 1950's, over Cuba in 1961 and over Israel in 1973. You can add to those if you so desire. I'm always willing to learn history. But I lived through two of the three instances I cited above, Cuba and Israel. I lived through the Cold War for almost 40 years of my life.
I'll tell you this. Shedding communism was the best things the Russians could have done for themselves. Now they are lean, mean and ready to kick the over-extended United States in its soft whining ass.
The Russian strong-man, Vladimir Putin, is a veteran of the Spetsnaz, the Soviet special forces. They are one mean, vicious bunch of SOB's who kill their own wounded and have plans for defeating the United States. Now that I live here, I have a very good clue as to what the real dangers are - and not just for us in Israel.
There will not be another Cold War. That is not the style of the Spetsnaz. They will strike to cripple the United States, and if they succeed, you are all up shit's creek - even those of you who hate America.
59 - Glenn Contrarian
So many replies to make, so little time. Really.
Arch - I didn't say that you were racist if you didn't lose sleep over Obama because you lived in a lily-white region of America. I see I wasn't clear enough - my fault. If Obama is assassinated, you will see many, many cities in America burn. If you live in a lily-white area, you might not be too worried about it. Okay? I hope that makes it clearer for you.
And when it comes to charity - you're going to love/hate this little fact. The statistics you're referring to that show Republicans giving more to charity than Democrats are wildly skewed - but that's NOT your fault, but the government's. Why? Because the government counts church offerings as charity.
THAT is why those states which have the highest churchgoing populations seem to be the ones that have the highest level of charity.
Thing is, Arch, true Christians do NOT see their offerings as a charity, but as a DUTY. It is the DUTY of Christians such as myself to give offerings unto my God, and I do so cheerfully with no reservation whatsoever. It is flatly wrong to list one's Church offerings as a tax deduction. Why? First, because the Bible tells us that when we offer, even our left hand should not know what our right hand is doing - and the MORE we shouldn't be letting the government know how much we give. Second, because we taxpayers know that we will receive a financial benefit from declaring tax deductions, and it is wrong to expect any kind of financial benefit in any way, shape, or form from our Church offerings.
And before you think I'm some kind of hypocrite, that is precisely the guidance we have received in the Church of which I am a member. We are not to declare our Church offerings as tax-deductible charity.
By now, Arch, you're probably shaking your head in disbelief and disgust - but following the guidance from the Bible is more important than receiving a financial benefit from the government or anyone else.
Take away the religious offerings from the government's charity statistics...and I suspect you might find a significantly different picture. I base that on over twenty years of looking at the charities in the Combined Federal Campaign - the majority of charities seemed to be for causes that would be more attractive to liberals: environmental, education, shelter for the abused/neglected/hungry, etc.
So please don't give me the old saw that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats do, because the ONLY reason it appears so is because the federal government counts religious offerings as charity...and to true Christians, our offerings are NOT charity, but our duty unto God.
60 - Glenn Contrarian
C-shop -
I agree with bliffle - references?
61 - Glenn Contrarian
ruvy -
Here is an interesting list of twenty times that we were too close for comfort to nuclear war. Normally I prefer to use more well-known sites, but the list seems fairly legit. Interestingly, it does not list the 'Able Archer' event in 1983.
62 - Baronius
So we've got two riffs going here: Reagan and Russia, and conservative versus liberal motivations.
I'll skip the Reagan part. I've learned that there's no convincing Baritone on this subject. As for Russia, they're lean and mean in the sense that they've all got tuberculosis. Their life expectancy is next to nothing, they've got more financial problems than the US and Europe combined, and $70 oil isn't going to help either. They've got a military that's capable of invading part of Georgia (a small, sympathetic part).
Liberal motivations: I don't hear much we-us-ours from them. It's more they-theirs-them. There's a fixation on other people's wealth and success, on comparing it and taking it. I don't see liberals going so much into low-paid helping professions as mid-range governmental positions. They don't complain about taxes because they're living off them.
Pardon the broad brush. I know that there are left-of-center, private sector, generous people. I personally think that liberals don't seek power in order to get money. But those who do become powerful get used to blank checks, and come to expect an above-average lifestyle.
63 - moon
I have to agree with Bliffle that Reagan did nothing.
The Soviet Union simply imploded.
And Bush Senior insisted that he and his predecessor were responsible.
They were only responsible for setting up the house of financial cards that has led to the imploding of the US.
What goes around comes around.
64 - bliffle
IMO the roots of our current financial distress go back to LBJ, partly from his intemperate "guns and butter" policy and from initiating mass raids on the SS fund through the "Special Treasury Bonds" that could not be traded and could only be redeemed by the fed.
Everybody aided and abetted these raids except for a brief time during Reagans administration when Volker rehabilitated SS, and during Clinton when deficit problems were addressed, but which left room (unfortunately) for Bush 43's irresponsible spending.
65 - Ms. Know
The way the liberal illuminati make you feel like asking questions or exposing the issues on the lefties is wrong, but it's not. It's respectful to let the people know what they're getting.
66 - Dr Liberal Illuminati Dreadful
Ms. liberal illuminati Know,
Are you liberal illuminati capable of writing a liberal illuminati sentence without the phrase 'liberal illuminati' in it?
67 - Clavos
but seeking wealth for the sake of wealth is a rare trait indeed in the liberal community.
Hhmmm...
Wealthy Liberal Democrats
All the Kennedys
Both Clintons: Bill has made $40M since leaving office; jointly they're worth $50M.
George Soros
John Edwards
Al Gore
All the rest of the Dems in Congress and the Senate
Most of Hollywood
David Letterman
Oprah Winfrey
Madonna
Bono
Most rock stars
All the talking heads on TV
And on and on...
68 - Clavos
What's a "liberal Illuminati?"
A Democratic light bulb?
69 - Dr Liberal Illuminati Dreadful
Correct, Clav.
When you flip the switch, it spreads the watts around.
8~D
BTW, Bono's Irish. He's not eligible to be a Democrat, and I dunno how he votes back home.
He does have a big house, though. I've been to it (though not inside). It's very nice, although for his sake I hope he likes having acres of graffiti scrawled all over the walls around the grounds, 'cause he's pretty much stuck with it.
70 - Clavos
Point taken, Doc.
He IS both liberal and rich, however.
I forgot to mention above that one of the wealthiest people I know personally (net worth multiple millions) is a section 8 landlord, with two substantial apartment towers here in Miami.
He is a self-described liberal Democrat...
71 - Dr Dreadful
Very illuminating...
72 - Dr Dreadful
Section 8 makes a lot of sense if you're a private landlord, Clav... especially if you have that many units available to lease.
Even if some of your tenants default, you're guaranteed to get paid at least part of the rent each month.
Very lucrative. And you can feel all warm and fuzzy inside!
73 - Dave Nalle
Last I checked we called that a 'slumlord' and spit in his shadow as he passed.
Dave
74 - Dr Dreadful
Shows what a fat lot you know about Section 8, Dave.
In the city where I work on the Section 8 program, there's a chronic shortage of rental housing, and we're constantly working to sell the program to prospective landlords. #72 is one selling point we use. It's attitudes like yours that put people off renting to Section 8 at all. Thanks a bunch.
A slumlord is known by his deeds; and believe me, we've got some real pieces of work on our list. One in particular - actually, there's a whole family of them - have an abysmal reputation in the city (they've been the subject of more than one investigative report in the local media), but our clients keep renting from them because the rents are cheap, they can't afford anything else and the family knows to do just enough to keep their units compliant.
But for every scumbag like that, there are dozens who are decent and fair - and are every shade of landlord from big property companies to private homeowners with a single house or apartment to rent.
Clavos said nothing about the character of his acquaintance, and I find myself wondering whether you'd have come out with that crack if he hadn't identified the fellow's political leanings.
75 - pablo
Dave once again puts his foot in his mouth. Your most recent article about the mugging/political attack at the atm machine is indeed rich. Your so quick to jump on any possible smear of your political opponent of the moment (Barrack Hussein Obama)that you only do discredit to yourself Nalle, indeed, the emperor has no clothes.
Nice comment Dread.
ps
i like the new moniker